Cops break into house, kill dog and harass old lady.

[mrvlknight21]

If this is true, then it's disgusting.

For weed. Boo ****ing hoo. Cigarettes kill more people with weed (if weed even kills anyone at all), but we have to keep weed banned because the CONservative Christian get in their fake "moral outrage" about it.

She should sue them for every penny they've got.

I hope you honestly dont believe this (in bold).

 

[Marvolo]

Well the story certainly isnt worded in a favorable light for law enforcement. Quite simply, the first line of the article (and title of this thread, I might add) is erroneous.

The cops didnt "break in" to anyone's house (no matter how many times that those words get repeated in the article). "Breaking in" to someone's home is illegal. A judge granted these officers a felony search warrant and they executed a felony search warrant. Here in Georgia, this can be a "no knock" or "knock first" warrant. Either way, they were within their rights and protocol to enter the home aggressively to conduct the search.

That said, when I have been a part of teams that execute these warrants, every person, young or old, handicapped or able bodied, male or female, is treated the same. However that does not mean kept on the floor at gun point. They should be searched and secured in a safe area.

Also, I dont know if the dog was acting aggressively or not. If it was, then yes, shooting it is an option to protect the officers. However, this line: They shot him with a shotgun in such a manner that he ran around in pain and bled all over the house and suffered a slow, cruel death is one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen in print. It makes it sound like the officers shot him only to injure him and make him suffer for their own cruel purposes.

Now before anyone attacks me, if this happened 100% the way that the lady claims, then the police made several mistakes that should be dealt with (not identifying themselves, keeping her in a hot car, etc etc). I am simply pointing out that the article is erroneous about some of the wording and seems to paint this entire thing off as police just being ***** for the fun of it and not there doing their job.

The picture of the blood trailing up the steps indicates whoever shot the dog was a piss poor shot or didnt aim to kill. If you hit a dog with a shutgon slug or buckshot in the head or chest you will kill it. Based on the blood trail and the distance the dog was able to travel after being shot id say the officer hit it in the gut or the hindquarters. Either way it was inhumane.

 

[mrvlknight21]

The picture of the blood trailing up the steps indicates whoever shot the dog was a piss poor shot or didnt aim to kill. If you hit a dog with a shutgon slug or buckshot in the head or chest you will kill it. Based on the blood trail and the distance the dog was able to travel after being shot id say the officer hit it in the gut or the hindquarters. Either way it was inhumane.

I have explained this in the 2nd amendment thread, but I will do it here as well. In law enforcement training, there is no such thing as "shooting to kill." That is NOT how officers are trained. They are trained to "stop the threat." So, if that means that the person (or in this case, the dog) stops attacking, then that is when you stop shooting. Now, officers are also trained to shoot center mass on humanoid targets at the range, but in dynamic situations, you take what you can get.

Now, this officer may have been attempting to shoot center mass or in the dog's head and the dog may have run towards them or whatever, and thus, he hits the dogs leg or butt or something. There is no indication that the officer kept shooting the dog after hitting him or anything else.

According to the lady, this dog was not attacking, but my point is that IF the dog did attack, these officers did what they should have in that situation. It seems by all accounts, that whether the dog attcked or didnt, he didnt attack anymore after being shot and thus, the officer (if attacked) acted appropriately as far as that was concerned.

 

[Marvolo]

I have explained this in the 2nd amendment thread, but I will do it here as well. In law enforcement training, there is no such thing as "shooting to kill." That is NOT how officers are trained. They are trained to "stop the threat." So, if that means that the person (or in this case, the dog) stops attacking, then that is when you stop shooting. Now, officers are also trained to shoot center mass on humanoid targets at the range, but in dynamic situations, you take what you can get.

Now, this officer may have been attempting to shoot center mass or in the dog's head and the dog may have run towards them or whatever, and thus, he hits the dogs leg or butt or something. There is no indication that the officer kept shooting the dog after hitting him or anything else.

According to the lady, this dog was not attacking, but my point is that IF the dog did attack, these officers did what they should have in that situation. It seems by all accounts, that whether the dog attcked or didnt, he didnt attack anymore after being shot and thus, the officer (if attacked) acted appropriately as far as that was concerned.

I really dont care what an officer is trained to do to a human. I expect anyone handeling a weapon to know how to effectively use that weapon. I also expect them to know how said wespon effects different targets. If the dog was a threat and he was aiming to neutralize the threat he should have shot to kill. An animal is not a human. You do not paralyze an animal or blow its gut out and let it bleed to death. A human you can shoot to neutralize because generally there is more body mass to aim at and they can be saved. In most cases when an animal is shot it must then be put down. You do not shoot to harm an animal. You shoot to kill. Anyone with any common semse knows this. If the animal was charging him and he was proficient with a shotgun it would have still be a fairly easy shot. People properly trained to use firearms are trained to deal with stressful situations. Clearly the officer who took the shot had a brain fart or simply didnt care about doing it properly.

Im sorry but anyone competent and properly trained to use a shotgun and properly trained in breaching tactics could have put that dog down in one shot. Even if he botched the first shot due to stress it would have taken one more shot to do the humane thing. Shooting to neutralize or, lets call it what it is, harm only is humane in the case of a human. Shooting to neutralize or harm only in the case of a dog is not.

 

[KALEL114]

And this is why we need more facts. It is very possible that the officer simply missed the shot. The priority was checking and clearing the house for other threats after the dog ran off. We don't know the timeline, how big the house is, if they tried to help the dog afterward etc. Like I said, if this is a true story, I hope other sites come out with more info.

 

[Marvolo]

And this is why we need more facts. It is very possible that the officer simply missed the shot. The priority was checking and clearing the house for other threats after the dog ran off. We don't know the timeline, how big the house is, if they tried to help the dog afterward etc. Like I said, if this is a true story, I hope other sites come out with more info.

I agree lack of info is painting it in a bad way. Honestly the whole thing sounds like one of those urban stories built entirely on heresay and rumors of cops being the bad guys. If it is true tho my thoughts go out to this unfortunate woman.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Missed the shot or was simply doing their duty to end a threat, no one with a decent head on their shoulders would allow the dog to run around in incredible pain to die a slow agonizing death. At that point, you shoot to end the dogs misery. If the dog was posing a legitimate threat (could you blame the dog?) then yes, sadly the officer had a right to fire, but NOT the right to subject the dog to such a cruel death. I really hope the officer is charged with cruelty to an animal. There's just no excuse for that type of evil, law enforcement or not.

 

[KALEL114]

Missed the shot or was simply doing their duty to end a threat, no one with a decent head on their shoulders would allow the dog to run around in incredible pain to die a slow agonizing death. At that point, you shoot to end the dogs misery. If the dog was posing a legitimate threat (could you blame the dog?) then yes, sadly the officer had a right to fire, but NOT the right to subject the dog to such a cruel death. I really hope the officer is charged with cruelty to an animal. There's just no excuse for that type of evil, law enforcement or not.

For all they know there could be armed individuals hiding in that house and you would want them to track down the dog to check on it and/or put it out of it's misery? No. You check the house first and make sure the house is clear, then worry about the dog. Again we are all just assuming and we really need more info on what happened (if it really did happen).

 

[Spider-Who?]

For all they know there could be armed individuals hiding in that house and you would want them to track down the dog to check on it and/or put it out of it's misery? No. You check the house first and make sure the house is clear, then worry about the dog. Again we are all just assuming and we really need more info on what happened (if it really did happen).

Yes, we do need more facts, but what we have is enough to paint some kind of picture. If you'll notice, I'm not faulting the cop for shooting the dog if it posed a legitimate threat. I'm faulting the cops for how they handled the situation upon shooting the animal and being fully aware that it was in a torturous and slow death.

Running with your hypothesis, you're telling me that they would have a hard time finding a mortally wounded, howling dog whose leaving a trail of blood while searching a small home for other people? That upon seeing the dog while on the search, they'd say "we haven't finished searching the house, lets wait to put the dog out of its misery, even though there's several of us and it'll take only one of us a fraction of a second to do so."? If the officers are so inept that they can't handle one tiny distraction - using that term extremely lightly based on the speed in which it takes to shoot the dog - (which is the morally RIGHT thing, mind you), then they have no business being police officers. Seriously. If that's your reasoning, what would you be saying if that dog were an unarmed person?

And for the record, I'm not a cop-hater. Several of my friends are in law enforcement, and I try to grant the respect I have for them to the police as a whole as much as possible. But sometimes, that is impossible to do.

 

[KALEL114]

Yes, we do need more facts, but what we have is enough to paint some kind of picture. If you'll notice, I'm not faulting the cop for shooting the dog if it posed a legitimate threat. I'm faulting the cops for how they handled the situation upon shooting the animal and being fully aware that it was in a torturous and slow death.

Running with your hypothesis, you're telling me that they would have a hard time finding a mortally wounded, howling dog whose leaving a trail of blood while searching a small home for other people? That upon seeing the dog while on the search, they'd say "we haven't finished searching the house, lets wait to put the dog out of its misery, even though there's several of us and it'll take only one of us a fraction of a second to do so."? If the officers are so inept that they can't handle one tiny distraction - using that term extremely lightly based on the speed in which it takes to shoot the dog - (which is the morally RIGHT thing, mind you), then they have no business being police officers. Seriously. If that's your reasoning, what would you be saying if that dog were an unarmed person?

And for the record, I'm not a cop-hater. Several of my friends are in law enforcement, and I try to grant the respect I have for them to the police as a whole as much as possible. But sometimes, that is impossible to do.

That is what I am saying. First, how do we know the house is small? That's another fact we are missing. Second, if they are searching a house for armed individuals, do you think they would want to alert said individuals to their location if they did find the dog and shot it again? They have protocols and policies they follow and more importantly they have families waiting for them at home. Protecting themselves is a priority. I hate to say it, because I love dogs, but this may have been the only thing they could have done if they indeed missed on the first shot.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This is hardly an isolated incident.

But it's true. If you are police you can legally break into someone's house, shoot their dog dead (for kicks, or because it poses a threat) and manhandle whoever you find inside.

Provided there is some marijuana, or some other illegal drugs.

And if there isn't, at worst, you might get paid leave.

 

[Spider-Who?]

That is what I am saying. First, how do we know the house is small? That's another fact we are missing. Second, if they are searching a house for armed individuals, do you think they would want to alert said individuals to their location if they did find the dog and shot it again? They have protocols and policies they follow and more importantly they have families waiting for them at home. Protecting themselves is a priority. I hate to say it, because I love dogs, but this may have been the only thing they could have done if they indeed missed on the first shot.

With the amount of noise they were already making (screaming, shouting, etc) as was reporting, they've already made their presence and location known. Trying to hide that is useless.

As for the size of the house, one only has to google search the street listed in the article. There are very few houses larger than your standard one story rambler or split foyer. That, plus the fact that it's a 75 year old woman who can barely walk, means she would most likely be in a small one or two level rambler.

 

[Thundercrack85]

For all they know there could be armed individuals hiding in that house and you would want them to track down the dog to check on it and/or put it out of it's misery? No. You check the house first and make sure the house is clear, then worry about the dog. Again we are all just assuming and we really need more info on what happened (if it really did happen).

Why would they assume there are armed individuals hiding in the house?

For that matter, why did they send a group of armed men to break into an infirm grandmother's house in the first place?

Common sense is becoming increasingly less common.

 

[KALEL114]

Why would they assume there are armed individuals hiding in the house?

For that matter, why did they send a group of armed men to break into an infirm grandmother's house in the first place?

Common sense is becoming increasingly less common.

Tone it down a bit.

They had a search warrant for the house, because of drugs or for the grandson who was growing the drugs there. Illegal activity was happening there, so caution is probably the best way to go. This leads to things we still need to know:

Who is the grandson and does he have a record or history of violence?

Does he live there too?

Does he have friends who have a record or history of violence. And if so, do they frequent the house they raided?


The police don't just crash into someones house without details like that. A judge doesn't sign a warrant just because. There is still a lot we need to know, hopefully we find out.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm sorry, I expect a certain iota of intelligence and tact from law enforcement.

Does the grandson have a history of violence? You don't know.

Was he even there? Nope. You'd think they would have made sure of that...

So, so far, you have a group of armed men breaking into a house, scaring the hell out of an old lady, and gunning down a dog (and they couldn't even do that properly).

And for what? Some illegal plants.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I'm sorry, I expect a certain iota of intelligence and tact from law enforcement.

Does the grandson have a history of violence? You don't know.

Was he even there? Nope. You'd think they would have made sure of that...

So, so far, you have a group of armed men breaking into a house, scaring the hell out of an old lady, and gunning down a dog (and they couldn't even do that properly).

And for what? Some illegal plants.

It is pretty clear that you are clueless about law enforcement operations.
I am with you on saying that it would be good to ensure that the main suspect of a search warrant is there when the operation takes place. However, there are benefits to him not being there and sometimes (depending on a LOT of factors) surveillance cant be conducted up to the point that the warrant is served. So, while it MAY be their fault and a bad idea to go there without knowing who exactly is in the house, that sort of thing is not always able to be determined. Sometimes it is and it is certainly good intel before moving in, but its not always available.

No, we dont know what the grandsons history is, but you better believe that someone manufacturing marijuana will be treated as such. It is much better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. They also want to ensure that the evidence that is the basis for the warrant doesnt get destroyed.

Let me assess your next to last statement piece by piece.
1) "a group of armed men breaking into a house"--lets see, they werent "breaking into a house" so that part is erroneous. Also, every police officer I have ever known was armed. So I guess you only added that to make is seem like an even worse erroneous statment.
2)"scaring the hell out of an old lady"--yes, this happens pretty much everytime the police kick in someone's door to execute a search warrant. Kids, mothers, fathers, old ladies-they usually get scared. The cops are not there to scare anyone, they are there to search the home.
3) "and gunning down a dog"--again, if this dog attacked they were certainly within their rights to shoot it.

Lets not forget that this grandson is really to blame for anything like this happening (assuming that he is in fact guilty of growing marijuana in this house). HE is the one that put grandma and the dog and any potential visitors and so on at risk when HE decided to grow marijuana at that house.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I doubt we will get the truth about what really happened here, because the police department will likely be extremely protective of their own and circle the wagons. Isn't that how it usually is in these kinds of situations?

 

[Marvolo]

It is pretty clear that you are clueless about law enforcement operations.
I am with you on saying that it would be good to ensure that the main suspect of a search warrant is there when the operation takes place. However, there are benefits to him not being there and sometimes (depending on a LOT of factors) surveillance cant be conducted up to the point that the warrant is served. So, while it MAY be their fault and a bad idea to go there without knowing who exactly is in the house, that sort of thing is not always able to be determined. Sometimes it is and it is certainly good intel before moving in, but its not always available.

No, we dont know what the grandsons history is, but you better believe that someone manufacturing marijuana will be treated as such. It is much better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. They also want to ensure that the evidence that is the basis for the warrant doesnt get destroyed.

Let me assess your next to last statement piece by piece.
1) "a group of armed men breaking into a house"--lets see, they werent "breaking into a house" so that part is erroneous. Also, every police officer I have ever known was armed. So I guess you only added that to make is seem like an even worse erroneous statment.
2)"scaring the hell out of an old lady"--yes, this happens pretty much everytime the police kick in someone's door to execute a search warrant. Kids, mothers, fathers, old ladies-they usually get scared. The cops are not there to scare anyone, they are there to search the home.
3) "and gunning down a dog"--again, if this dog attacked they were certainly within their rights to shoot it.

Lets not forget that this grandson is really to blame for anything like this happening (assuming that he is in fact guilty of growing marijuana in this house). HE is the one that put grandma and the dog and any potential visitors and so on at risk when HE decided to grow marijuana at that house.

Regardless of the warrant, they were aware that a 75 year old multiple stroke victim senoir was residing in the house. There was no reason to bust in the door. They could have placed officers arpund the property to cover any exits. Politely and sensibly knocked on the door. Presented the lady wih the search warrant and entered the house and cleared the house room by room. The way they did it was needlessly violent, chaotic, and disrespectful. It seems like some hothead cops decided to have a little fun with this one and went in all gungho and locked and loaded.

This happened in New York and I believe it isnt a castle law state. Had a search warrant been executed this way in a castle law state someone would have been shot regardless of warrant. Cops in my area know to execute warrant searches with a certain decorum and sensible planning because in most cases if you just bust in someones door you will take a slug to the face. I keep guns throughout my house and if my door came busting in i would reach for my gun and react which would probably result in me being shot. I wouldnt have time to check if it was police busting down my door. This kind of reckless police work may fly in New York but in some places it will get people killed.

 

[KALEL114]

It was most likely a No-Knock warrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

 

[Fading]

The picture of the blood trailing up the steps indicates whoever shot the dog was a piss poor shot or didnt aim to kill. If you hit a dog with a shutgon slug or buckshot in the head or chest you will kill it. Based on the blood trail and the distance the dog was able to travel after being shot id say the officer hit it in the gut or the hindquarters. Either way it was inhumane.

I know police officers have gun training, but I've met one that was a horrible shot, so a miss is possible. However the humane thing to do after the bad shot, while it was suffering, would be a second shot to the head or chest like you said.

As for the bad shot mention. I was at a friends house and someone hit a deer on the road out front. Someone called 911, and the deer was still crawling. The cop shows up, and gets a rifle out of his truck. His first shot (only 10 ft or so away) hits it in the stomach, and the deer makes an awful noise. It's still crawling, bleeding everywhere. So my friend says, "Let me go get my gun, I'll kill it, you're just torturing it." The cop says he has it, and shoots it in the shoulder (guessing going for a heart shot). Finally the 3rd shot is in the chest, and it dies. He calls a friend to take it home, which I'm guessing is why he avoided a headshot.

As a side note I respect law enforcement. I take it as a case by case bases. The ones near me haven't shown any signs of corruption. I don't like blaming the whole for fringe elements. Ones like this (if a true story), or in other stories, that abuse their power when they're supposed to serve and protect do disgust me however. Especially when the victim is a child, or elderly person (which I'm sure is how most ppl feel, hopefully). Just saying that since I seemed to be down on them.

 

[Marvolo]

I know police officers have gun training, but I've met one that was a horrible shot, so a miss is possible. However the humane thing to do after the bad shot, while it was suffering, would be a second shot to the head or chest like you said.

As for the bad shot mention. I was at a friends house and someone hit a deer on the road out front. Someone called 911, and the deer was still crawling. The cop shows up, and gets a rifle out of his truck. His first shot (only 10 ft or so away) hits it in the stomach, and the deer makes an awful noise. It's still crawling, bleeding everywhere. So my friend says, "Let me go get my gun, I'll kill it, you're just torturing it." The cop says he has it, and shoots it in the shoulder (guessing going for a heart shot). Finally the 3rd shot is in the chest, and it dies. He calls a friend to take it home, which I'm guessing is why he avoided a headshot.

As a side note I respect law enforcement. I take it as a case by case bases. The ones near me haven't shown any signs of corruption. I don't like blaming the whole for fringe elements. Ones like this (if a true story), or in other stories, that abuse their power when they're supposed to serve and protect do disgust me however. Especially when the victim is a child, or elderly person (which I'm sure is how most ppl feel, hopefully). Just saying that since I seemed to be down on them.

Poor deer. Goes to show that being a cop doesnt automatically make you good with a gun. Truth be told i dont really trust cops with guns. Most civillians i know that own guns have a passion for them and work at becoming very good at handling the weapon. Whereas some cops just do the bare minimum to show they can use the gun and dont work at becoming good with the weapon. Obviously you have exceptions on both sides. I also feel some cops are overly trigger happy.

I know and have interacted with plenty of cops. Most just want to do their shift and get home to their family with little trouble so i tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. The ones on the powertrips. The ones with the attitude. The ones who act like their **** doesnt stink. The trigger happy ones. I have no use for them. This case just seems like a poorly executed operation.

 

[The Question]

Well the story certainly isnt worded in a favorable light for law enforcement. Quite simply, the first line of the article (and title of this thread, I might add) is erroneous.

The cops didnt "break in" to anyone's house (no matter how many times that those words get repeated in the article). "Breaking in" to someone's home is illegal. A judge granted these officers a felony search warrant and they executed a felony search warrant. Here in Georgia, this can be a "no knock" or "knock first" warrant. Either way, they were within their rights and protocol to enter the home aggressively to conduct the search.

That said, when I have been a part of teams that execute these warrants, every person, young or old, handicapped or able bodied, male or female, is treated the same. However that does not mean kept on the floor at gun point. They should be searched and secured in a safe area.

Also, I dont know if the dog was acting aggressively or not. If it was, then yes, shooting it is an option to protect the officers. However, this line: They shot him with a shotgun in such a manner that he ran around in pain and bled all over the house and suffered a slow, cruel death is one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen in print. It makes it sound like the officers shot him only to injure him and make him suffer for their own cruel purposes.

Now before anyone attacks me, if this happened 100% the way that the lady claims, then the police made several mistakes that should be dealt with (not identifying themselves, keeping her in a hot car, etc etc). I am simply pointing out that the article is erroneous about some of the wording and seems to paint this entire thing off as police just being ***** for the fun of it and not there doing their job.

I'd argue that there's something ****ed up about the way they're supposed to do their jobs.

Over the last several years, there seems to have been a sharp increase in police conducting raids in a highly aggressive and military-like manner, and with that there seems to have come an upswing in civilian casualties and injuries.

The police may have been within their legal right here. But I think, at a certain point, that becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a police officer is within their legal right if there's something inherently wrong with those laws.

I mean, I get what your saying. Technically they did not break in by the legal definition of the word and they may very well have been within their legal rights. But this is still all around an awful situation and the question of wether or not this should have ever been allowed to happen is an important one to address.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It is pretty clear that you are clueless about law enforcement operations.
I am with you on saying that it would be good to ensure that the main suspect of a search warrant is there when the operation takes place. However, there are benefits to him not being there and sometimes (depending on a LOT of factors) surveillance cant be conducted up to the point that the warrant is served. So, while it MAY be their fault and a bad idea to go there without knowing who exactly is in the house, that sort of thing is not always able to be determined. Sometimes it is and it is certainly good intel before moving in, but its not always available.

No, we dont know what the grandsons history is, but you better believe that someone manufacturing marijuana will be treated as such. It is much better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. They also want to ensure that the evidence that is the basis for the warrant doesnt get destroyed.

Let me assess your next to last statement piece by piece.
1) "a group of armed men breaking into a house"--lets see, they werent "breaking into a house" so that part is erroneous. Also, every police officer I have ever known was armed. So I guess you only added that to make is seem like an even worse erroneous statment.
2)"scaring the hell out of an old lady"--yes, this happens pretty much everytime the police kick in someone's door to execute a search warrant. Kids, mothers, fathers, old ladies-they usually get scared. The cops are not there to scare anyone, they are there to search the home.
3) "and gunning down a dog"--again, if this dog attacked they were certainly within their rights to shoot it.

Lets not forget that this grandson is really to blame for anything like this happening (assuming that he is in fact guilty of growing marijuana in this house). HE is the one that put grandma and the dog and any potential visitors and so on at risk when HE decided to grow marijuana at that house.

I would consider entering forcefully, by kicking someone's door in (presumably literally breaking it), "breaking in". If you want to argue semantics, go for it.

What exactly stopped the cops from ringing the bell or knocking on the door, and presenting a warrant in a civilized manner? Presumably they know the only occupant is an old infirm woman.

And you're assuming the dog attacked. An assumption. Though presumably any dog would be alarmed if a group of men broke into its house (so indeed, it may have barked at them, or attacked them). Though given all the the police-related dog killings, including shooting a labrador running away from them (or that incident not too long ago, where they shot a "hostile" chihuahua...in its crate), you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical.

This could all have been avoided if they had exercised some restraint, and used some common sense.

 

[Quasimod0]

It is pretty clear that you are clueless about law enforcement operations.
I am with you on saying that it would be good to ensure that the main suspect of a search warrant is there when the operation takes place. However, there are benefits to him not being there and sometimes (depending on a LOT of factors) surveillance cant be conducted up to the point that the warrant is served. So, while it MAY be their fault and a bad idea to go there without knowing who exactly is in the house, that sort of thing is not always able to be determined. Sometimes it is and it is certainly good intel before moving in, but its not always available.

No, we dont know what the grandsons history is, but you better believe that someone manufacturing marijuana will be treated as such. It is much better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. They also want to ensure that the evidence that is the basis for the warrant doesnt get destroyed.

Let me assess your next to last statement piece by piece.
1) "a group of armed men breaking into a house"--lets see, they werent "breaking into a house" so that part is erroneous. Also, every police officer I have ever known was armed. So I guess you only added that to make is seem like an even worse erroneous statment.
2)"scaring the hell out of an old lady"--yes, this happens pretty much everytime the police kick in someone's door to execute a search warrant. Kids, mothers, fathers, old ladies-they usually get scared. The cops are not there to scare anyone, they are there to search the home.
3) "and gunning down a dog"--again, if this dog attacked they were certainly within their rights to shoot it.

Lets not forget that this grandson is really to blame for anything like this happening (assuming that he is in fact guilty of growing marijuana in this house). HE is the one that put grandma and the dog and any potential visitors and so on at risk when HE decided to grow marijuana at that house.

An intelligent post on the hype?!

 

[Mike_D202]

I have explained this in the 2nd amendment thread, but I will do it here as well. In law enforcement training, there is no such thing as "shooting to kill." That is NOT how officers are trained. They are trained to "stop the threat." So, if that means that the person (or in this case, the dog) stops attacking, then that is when you stop shooting. Now, officers are also trained to shoot center mass on humanoid targets at the range, but in dynamic situations, you take what you can get.

Now, this officer may have been attempting to shoot center mass or in the dog's head and the dog may have run towards them or whatever, and thus, he hits the dogs leg or butt or something. There is no indication that the officer kept shooting the dog after hitting him or anything else.

According to the lady, this dog was not attacking, but my point is that IF the dog did attack, these officers did what they should have in that situation. It seems by all accounts, that whether the dog attcked or didnt, he didnt attack anymore after being shot and thus, the officer (if attacked) acted appropriately as far as that was concerned.

how could she tell if the dog wasn't being aggressive or not if her head was on the ground and her eyes were shut?

Wasn't there another thread with a news article about cops arresting someone and the suspect had a bullet wound in his head in the back of the police car? And a majority if the comments were against the cops and wanted them fired/arrested? This story is coming from a first-person one-sided perspective of a 75 year old woman who was letting her grandson grow marijuana plants in her house. People need to keep an open mind.

It is pretty clear that you are clueless about law enforcement operations.
I am with you on saying that it would be good to ensure that the main suspect of a search warrant is there when the operation takes place. However, there are benefits to him not being there and sometimes (depending on a LOT of factors) surveillance cant be conducted up to the point that the warrant is served. So, while it MAY be their fault and a bad idea to go there without knowing who exactly is in the house, that sort of thing is not always able to be determined. Sometimes it is and it is certainly good intel before moving in, but its not always available.

No, we dont know what the grandsons history is, but you better believe that someone manufacturing marijuana will be treated as such. It is much better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. They also want to ensure that the evidence that is the basis for the warrant doesnt get destroyed.

Let me assess your next to last statement piece by piece.
1) "a group of armed men breaking into a house"--lets see, they werent "breaking into a house" so that part is erroneous. Also, every police officer I have ever known was armed. So I guess you only added that to make is seem like an even worse erroneous statment.
2)"scaring the hell out of an old lady"--yes, this happens pretty much everytime the police kick in someone's door to execute a search warrant. Kids, mothers, fathers, old ladies-they usually get scared. The cops are not there to scare anyone, they are there to search the home.
3) "and gunning down a dog"--again, if this dog attacked they were certainly within their rights to shoot it.

Lets not forget that this grandson is really to blame for anything like this happening (assuming that he is in fact guilty of growing marijuana in this house). HE is the one that put grandma and the dog and any potential visitors and so on at risk when HE decided to grow marijuana at that house.